Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
4.242.144.209
In Reply to: Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? posted by Peter Gunn on March 10, 2007 at 20:38:05:
PG
Yep. I meant you, but didn't want to use your name without permission.
Everything you said in our Emails and in this post is true. I don't understand why it sounds different. You say the rear wave is more important. That wave is delayed (reflected, longer path) and has more chance of being changed (reflected and diffused) by the front wall, diffusion, equipment, ficus trees, etc.. It seems counter-intuitive, but definitely sounds good. I would never have thought to turn them around. Thanks for the idea. It is just amazing what these speakers are capable of. I can only imagine how they will sound modded.
Follow Ups:
If repeating a conversation we had you can use my name.My opinion in this matter is based around many years of owning maggies and listening to them, not any "hard" science. (although repeated validated listening may very well count as that) Real life applications often confound experts because things often simply don't behave in actual use like they thought they were going to on paper, which is why I put more stock in judging a speaker by listening to it.
I am finding my new wood frames make the highs and mids sound very much like an electrostat. Very clear and pure of tone. (granted, some maggie fans may not prefer that) The bass however goes well beyond any stat, and way beyond just about any maggie yet they have not lost the inherent maggie "sound".
The 1.6's are about half way done, but I need to find a new way to join the frames so they don't skew while clamping.
PGI trust your ears over science. "Hard Science" can improve alot of things but I trust a careful listener more to make or improve a great speaker. Don't get me wrong, I am no Luddite. I love technology. But that being said, many of audio's best sounding devices are, or are based on older technology. I don't want a speaker that "technically" sounds better. I want it to actually sound better, to human ears. I haven't seen your ears, but I assume they are human.
Your full frames and bracing should really keep the drivers and vibration in control. Plus, DANG...they are pretty.
I hope the 1.6s go well, frame and crossover. I can't wait to hear how they turn out.
Is this what you're doing?
I use 2 Bessy K bar clamps on each end side, and one older long I beam bar clamp for the ends.Part of my problem is my corners are not neat 45 degree miters and the pieces are not the same width. The ones at the top in fact are very oblique angles. I considered doing it your way but it's not any more practical. I also prefer the way I do it as you can check squareness of the entire frame at once and glue it in one go.
I need to install a dowel in each corner. That will stop the frame from racking under clamping pressure. The only problem with that is they must be drilled perfectly, and I'm going to buy a jig that can do that. I hate all forms of modern joinery: biscuits, dowels etc... but traditional methods would not be practical with this design.
Are these the frames you're making? Looks good so far. I see you got your wazoo worked out too.
That is an example of what I found while Googling "clamp miter join". What an incredible tool the Internet has become! I know it has its dark side (Hasn't everything?), but it has increased the spread of information incalculably (for better and worse, I know).Anyway, thanks for sharing your issues. I think the method illustrated by that photograph will work perfectly for me - on three sides (they'll be of equal widths). The bottom piece will be considerably wider, but I still plan to join it on a 45 degree angle - the rest of its width won't get mitered (the sides of my frames will not be seen as they will inside dados in my braces - I was considering "scoring" the extra wide piece at the width of the others to give it a more symmetrical appearance, but I haven't decided on it). Obviously that clamping method won't work for the fourth piece, and I'm still puzzling over that detail.
I can't start until I have my wood - which will be in a week (I think). In the meantime, I am working out various techniques with lesser materials - some things are trickier than they appear, but I think I'm ready. It's certainly been a fun endeavor so far, but it hasn't been particularly cheap. On the other hand, I think the little Maggies have a great deal of potential, and they have rewarded my efforts with better sound.
"Dawnrazor" sent me a link to the secret codes and the rest was elementary. I'm not trying to be a copy cat, but I liked your signature line - very cool. It prompted me to look up Duane Eddy. As a former guitar (and sax and flute) player, I didn't know why I was unfamiliar with him - a little twangy, but he's very good.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: